between the lines Joseph Farah The Obama eligibility cover-up

Posted: April 27, 2009
1:00 am Eastern

© 2009

Everyone reading this column knows that the news service over which I preside has been virtually alone in covering one of the biggest electoral scandals in American history – maybe the biggest.

I’m talking about the question of Barack Obama’s constitutional eligibility to serve as president.

Even many of Obama’s political opponents and harshest critics continue to pretend this is a non-issue, that it’s a matter that has somehow been settled, that it is a question only people who wear tin-foil hats are discussing.

I know that’s not the case, given a petition I began demanding proof Obama is a “natural-born citizen” has now attracted more than 360,000 signees.

Yet, the cover-up continues.

The rest of the media care not.

They have no idea how much concern there is for the sanctity of the Constitution out there throughout America.

But just to point out the duplicity of my colleagues in the establishment press, I would like to ask a rhetorical question: Did the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Chicago Tribune and ABC News cover a story about questions over a presidential candidate’s constitutional eligibility during the long campaign last year?

Surprisingly, perhaps, the answer is “Yes, they did.”

They all covered the question over John McCain’s eligibility as a “natural-born citizen.”

Back on Feb. 28, 2008, the New York Times covered it.

That very same day, the Wall Street Journal covered it.

The Chicago Tribune covered it 10 days earlier.

And, just over a year ago, ABC News covered it.

As I have pointed out before, John McCain’s constitutional eligibility was considered important enough that congressional hearings were held on the matter – with Barack Obama eagerly signing up as a co-sponsor of legislation declaring his opponent fit to hold the office of the presidency.

Yet, no such hearings were held to demand Obama prove he was born in Hawaii as he claimed – despite his refusal, right up to today, to provide something as simple, innocuous and non-invasive of his privacy as a long-form birth certificate that would lay all such questions to rest.

Instead, all Obama ever released to select media was a “certificate of live birth,” which, as we all know, could have been issued to a resident of Hawaii for a foreign birth.

Why the lack of curiosity then?

Why the lack of curiosity now?

Why is everyone so eager to put this chapter of American political history behind us when it potentially cheapens our collective respect for the Constitution and potentially places the current occupant of the White House in a compromised position – even subject to blackmail if indeed he is not telling the truth about where he was born?

It would be so easy for Obama to settle this matter.

Instead of fighting lawsuits from citizens, including some currently serving in the military services right now in Iraq and Afghanistan who have serious concerns about the eligibility of Obama to serve in office, why won’t he just release the long-form birth certificate?

Why is that so difficult?

Why is that so onerous?

Doesn’t he realize that even though his friends in the media and many of his weak-kneed political opponents dare not breathe word of this controversy other than to denigrate those who do, it just ain’t going away?

If you are like me and believe the Constitution actually means what it says, I urge you to get the latest issue of Whistleblower magazine by subscribing to WND’s groundbreaking monthly or purchasing the single copy for just $7.50. It represents the most complete and comprehensive investigative report on this matter yet undertaken by any news organization. (It is also the first issue of the magazine in its new glossy 48-page format – entirely devoted to this one topic.)

Get it today. Share the information. Spread the word. Do it for your country.

%d bloggers like this: